I wonder if they used this station, which is famous in Russia? See details here
Steve McIntyre reports on Climate Audit that there’s an email from Michael Mann that is relevant:
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
More bullying from the team.
=============================
Guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent
It’s true, and it’s huge. Today another example of CRU having their foot on the scale, Russian papers are reporting that the Russian surface station data was sorted by CRU to use the highest warming stations only.
Russia affected by Climategate
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
They specifically state that lack of measurement is not the cause. If they claim the full set of Russian data does NOT support global warming, imagine how different the bright red dot over Russia would look. Again the accusation is completely believable, yet is completely unverifiable because CRU has refused to release the data. This data and code release is the subject of illegal blocking of FOIA’s is one of the keys in the Climategate emials. We need to know the list of stations used and we must have copies of the raw data.
This is a very powerful accusation, which if true could change much about the climate science debate. Many papers are based on this dataset which has the highest trend of the major ground datasets.
Here is a PDF (in Russian) can anyone provide a translation?
http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf
Sponsored IT training links:
Download the latest 70-450 dumps and JN0-522 study guide to guaranteed pass 1z0-042 exam.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Speer (12:24:21) :
“The Founder/Director of this Russian institute is:
1. a skeptic for a very long time already
2. a very influential guy (he was senior advisor for Poetin)”
While I am all for being cautious about “think tank” institutes claiming facts one way or the other, it amuses me that certain people will jump all over the messenger in this case, but will not think twice when pro-AGW types (Al Gore, Jim Hansen, et al) make all sorts of wacky claims…
In my opinion, if there’s more Russian land temperature data, then let’s see it – we can make up our own minds as to its significance. Given the evidence in the CRU e-mails, it would not surprise me in the least that they would cherry-pick the Russian data set.
” Invariant (13:28:19) :
Jakers (13:10:15) :
Which part of Peter’s analysis is erroneous?”
How would I know? How would anyone know? It’s just a quick video of some graphs.
It’s all because Russia has fossil fuels to sell … ‘says Al Gore’. See how easy it is to discredit.
The pattern is clear, the CRU-NASA team has been cherry picking data around the world to try and assemble their hockey stick. No wonder they refused to give out their software code.
The debate between Monbiot and Plimer took place on Abc. It seemed to me
that Monbiot came across more as a hot headed enviromental activist then
as an enquiring journalist, and that i think is a problem we have with the press
today, there is to much activism and not enough reporting of the facts.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm
NOAA’s latest spin- they even call them talking points.
“A. Yes. That is one reason why NOAA created the Climate Reference Network. These stations
adhere to all of the Global Climate Monitoring Principles and are located are located in areas free
local human influences and have excellent site location characteristics. They are closely
monitored and are subject to rigorous calibration procedures”
What a bold bunch of liars they are!
Quoting:
“Just keep in mind that in Russian, you have to use double negatives. So “they never didn’t include the data” means “they didn’t include the data.”
Commenting:
It can go to triple negatives. For example – Я никогда не знаю ничего – “I never don’t know nothing.”
“Call in the Cavalry: An American Team B
Climategate just confirms what has long been obvious to those paying attention and living in the real world. Global warming never had anything to do with science. It was all about power and money. The UN saw it as a grand opportunity to expand its powers into a world government, and, in fact, is still breathlessly pursing this undemocratic, neo-fascist nightmare in Copenhagen. That explains the IPCC’s hopelessly bad science. Other world governments saw it as a tremendous opportunity to expand their power and control, and so joined in encouraging the Grand Hoax. The worldwide Left and media fellow travelers (imagining themselves as “liberals”) who philosophically, and quite naively, favor such centralized government control as a means to do “good,” joined in perpetuating the scientific hoax as well. Environmentalist extremist groups saw it as the chance for the final victory in gaining control over all private business, and hopefully achieving the ultimate environmentalist dream in repealing the Industrial Revolution. Michael Crichton’s State of Fear is now revealed as the ultimate sourcebook for understanding these environmentalist organizations.”
The Great Hoax
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/16/the-great-hoax
The CRU crew presents:
The Biased Unethical Meteorology rap
Yo! CO2 is on the rise
As icecaps melt before our eyes
Temperatures are getting’ higher
And Al Gore is our favourite liar.
Pump it up, pump up the gas
Pump it up, before it’s passed.
Somethings rotten in Denmark
Kill the lights, keep ‘em in the dark.
We get the data, fresh and clean
And fix it up, know what we mean?
Then cherry-pick the ones that rise
The graph goes up, before our eyes.
Shut ‘em down, shut down the guys
Shut ‘em down, that see our lies.
Somethings rotten in e-mails
Flush the data, if all else fails.
If our weather gets much colder
Our cap and trade won’t get much older.
We have to strike while the iron is hot
Because our planet, it is not!
Jakers (12:33:58) :
. . .
Well, you could read this http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf and http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf
At first, I thought you were joking. Then I realize — you likely are not. There are serious problems with those ncdc documents. If you read Pielke and others, you could get up to speed on the analytical erros in those documents.
I was wondering if a simple project can work. There are alot of people who view this sight that live all over North America. Was wondering if a simple project of everyone simply getting their daily temperature in their town and the the 20 nearest towns to them, and logging how many degrees plus or minus from “Average” it was for any given day, then simply summing the “anomolies” for the month. If you compile these from hundreds or thousands of towns, spread across north america, then you can see if if the end result is generally negative or positive. I think a cool website can be built for this which allows thousands to contribute. Then a comparison can be made against NASA.
Invariant (13:01:08) :
I strongly recommend reading more than ncdc documents to get a balanced picture. For example, see the following:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/05/pielk-sr-responds-to-ncdcs-talking-points-about-surfacesations-org/#more-9123
I’m sure Russians of all people would love to see a little global warming and if their scientists say something is fishy, then there is something really rotten in Denmark.
Im wondering just how deep this rabbit hole actually is.
As far as I am concerned, Johnny Cash has the last word.
And that’s not AGW!
tty (13:02:40) :
“OT but amusing.
There is a blizzard in Copenhagen.”
Throw in a lean and hungry wolf-pack and you’ve made my day!
“Funny that you can get more truth about AGW and the climategate mess from Pravda than you can get from the NY Times. Who would have ever thought?”
Having seen Pravda articles pop up on a US Conservative site in the past year, I’d say there are English-speakers working for Pravda who know what buttons to push simply by reading US sites. That said, in spite of the fact that this accusation coincides with the cherry-picking of data by CRU and company, I would remain skeptical unless/until the Russian source releases the data to back up the claim.
Maybe they should have given Putin the Carbon Credits he wanted, and thiswould have been kept quiet.
My upside down pyramid “picture” is becoming more and more appropriate. Think of climate science as a pyramid (upside down). The tip is the CRU-style science. Everything else is built on top of that in an ever-expanding pile. All the tens of thousands of news reports and the scientific papers you hear quoted in them are part of this pyramid with its tip crumpling. Somebody with a modicum of artistic ability good make a nice depiction of this to headline some of these posts.
Jakers, the Russians interests in AGW are complex.
One camp, those associated with petrodollars thru extraction and transport have little interest in a warmer world as it drives down speculated prices, others see it as an opportunity to make some carbon credit cash off of all of the industrial retrenchment they have endured over the past 15 years (an unintentional, carbon credit windfall). The best scenario for them is a treaty with weak enforcement and verification mechanisms, and a debunked warmer world scenario.
And that is just the big fish, and who knows who is actually pulling the strings in the Kremlin and media this week. They do seem far more pragmatic about this then our elected leaders.
Rodger Knights, and polar bears.
Not sure it matters in this case. Either the CRU did leave out a significant number of “inconvenient” Russian stations or they did not. Surely “authority” in this case comes from being right.
Come on… you can surely do better than that.
Probably the most telling data selection bias: the HadCRU used 72 out of 73 (98.6%) stations that were moved while only using 25% of the total set of stations available.
The chance of that happening randomly 0%.
The reason they would prefer station that have been moved: it gives them the opportunity to provide a “correction.”
The UK Met office has a good graphic depicting which stations they have data for (red) and which stations they used to create the HADCRUT3 records (gray): http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/locations.GIF
You can see the big part of Russia with plenty of red dots, but no grays.
Jakers (13:46:59) : How would anyone know?
What is meant by the phrase “Emperors new clothes”?
Roger Knights (14:10:44) :
The hungry wolf-pack is send in tomorrow.
There was a comment to a post a couple of years ago, on Steve’s site, that always stuck in my head. Basically it pointed out the hockey stick blade shot up about the time communism collapsed in Russia and the author of the comment made the equation that a lot of Russian surface stations may have gone out of service as a result of the political turmoil. At the time it could have been said that people maintaining surface stations would still have been doing their job – they needed the money with the Russian currency having problems. However, on reflection it was not the Russians who had failed to keep the temperature stations up to date but western climate scientists who deleted them. Might there be some mileage in checking out when these rural stations were deleted and whether or not it corresponds with the hockey blade in a meaningful fashion?